Sagan 4 Forum [Menu]

I changed the genus

I should say that I disagree with the entire concept of "decanonization", and, in general, the shift to a degree of rigorousness of standards in Alpha that to me seems clearly unsustainable and produces more problems than it solves. I think that "implausibility" is too ingrained in the structure of Alpha's timeline to be completely removed without changing the very basic construction of the entire affair -- massive retcons and deletions, a sort of revisionist mindset that has the potential to turn Alpha into a totalitarian web of retroactive micromanaging to conform to a certain standard of realism (IMHO, of course) is clearly unsustainable (as in, "swimming against the current") and goes against the spirit of the projec.
To be clear, I am not against minor retcons that merely make things a bit more realistic or less transparently Ridiculous (looking at you [heh], tree-worm with eyes for berries), such as the arrowhead ones. But outright removing an entire genus and replacing it (that is to say, its space in the compendium, not its actual role) with a new, totally nonequivalent and frankly much less interesting species? That's different game in full. I think that, in the broad sense, the MO of the project going forward should be to prevent future egregious implausibilities when possible, and to just roll with the ones that already exist, much like Dorite did with the tummorsuses. In my opinion, this would lead to far more interesting, creative outcomes than just censoring and memory-holing anything that doesn't hold to the new quality standards.

I agree in that retroactively removing species and replacing them with other ones and species deletions would complicate things, relative to description and minor art revisions. Retroactive insertions long into the past could also complicate things, such as for the Seashrog and Pirate Waxface, though those have been well-incorporated into the ecosystems now and thus can't be removed.

QUOTE (CosmoRomanticist @ Jul 9 2021, 06:11 PM)

I should say that I disagree with the entire concept of "decanonization", and, in general, the shift to a degree of rigorousness of standards in Alpha that to me seems clearly unsustainable and produces more problems than it solves. I think that "implausibility" is too ingrained in the structure of Alpha's timeline to be completely removed without changing the very basic construction of the entire affair -- massive retcons and deletions, a sort of revisionist mindset that has the potential to turn Alpha into a totalitarian web of retroactive micromanaging to conform to a certain standard of realism (IMHO, of course) is clearly unsustainable (as in, "swimming against the current") and goes against the spirit of the projec. To be clear, I am not against minor retcons that merely make things a bit more realistic or less transparently Ridiculous (looking at you [heh], tree-worm with eyes for berries), such as the arrowhead ones. But outright removing an entire genus and replacing it (that is to say, its space in the compendium, not its actual role) with a new, totally nonequivalent and frankly much less interesting species? That's different game in full. I think that, in the broad sense, the MO of the project going forward should be to prevent future egregious implausibilities when possible, and to just roll with the ones that already exist, much like Dorite did with the tummorsuses. In my opinion, this would lead to far more interesting, creative outcomes than just censoring and memory-holing anything that doesn't hold to the new quality standards.

First point, the only people allowed to decanonize a species is the original artist. I have allowed both of these because they are replacing species both Nergali and Disgustedorite made. Not even I am allowed to remove a species without the expressed permission of the original artist, which is why we still have the nuclear fusion microbes.

Second, the reason this latest one is being decanonized is because it's A.) recent enough that it is not incorporated into any other species page or to have descendants, B.) The original artist requested it be removed, and C.) it had irreconcilable problem with the species. This isn't exactly a willy-nilly replacement, its a replacement of a genus that the original creator doesn't stand by, and I'm not going to force them to have to live with the submission. Now if someone had made a descendant of the tummorsuses that incorporated the implausibilities, Dorite would be SOL here, as it'll be too late to remove

Tummorsuses should not have been approved in the first place, and I never should have submitted them. I created them to be implausible under a misguided idea that I could use Sagan 4 Alpha as a bullshit playground. It would be completely different if they were only bad on accident.

Please don't use profanity. More to the point...is it fair to replace things like the Tummorsus with something of a completely different character? Does it set a bad precedent, relative to replacing them with a loosely similar microbe species created by Disgustedorite? I don't have a particular strong opinion, but I'd rather we not establish precedents that cause trouble later.

This is recent enough that the insert doesn't introduce problems. It would be different if, say, someone yeeted a pre-gamma ray species and replaced it with a very small burrowing tundra-dwelling roamer that proceeds to survive to the modern day, retroactively metagaming to bring back a lineage that died in 2007.

I suppose that's true. It would be useful to specify a deadline for canon-replacements like this. How about "only within the same Week"? That's assuming, of course, no ecological significance or connections with other organisms.

Okay, fair enough. I've actually thought about the idea more, and I've realized that what bothers me isn't stringent plausibility standards, but more the idea of getting rid of a whole entire species and not replacing it with something equivalent. In fact, I fully approve of the idea of editing species to make more sense/not have gaping holes or weird misinterpretations. Also, what exactly was so "bull-" about the tummorses anyway?

As I stated, the tummorsuses were motile out of nowhere and their "digestive fold" doesn't work (especially at their scale). They would have to be redesigned beyond recognition and probably have a different ancestor to function.

QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Jun 26 2021, 07:10 AM)

I would like for tummorsuses to be decanonized. I made them during my "this is alpha so I can do whatever I want" phase and they're not only implausible, but intentionally so, and I regret ever submitting them and wish they had been rejected. To take the slot they filled in Generation 161, I submit this descendant of the Tamjack, which was extant at the time: Tambuck (Scandonychotherium albus) Creator: Disgustedorite Ancestor: Tamjack Habitat: Jlindy Tropical Beach, Jlindy Tropical Coast, Dass Temperate Beach, Dass Temperate Coast, BigL Tropical Beach, BigL Tropical Coast Size: 2.5 meters long Support: Endoskeleton (Bone) Diet: Herbivore (Tlukvaequabora, Marbleflora, Snotflora, Carnurtain, Olltooka, Tethered Mine Layer, Double Bubblgea, Harp-Hum, Greater Droopgea, Flashkelps, Pioneer Raftballs, Pinprong, Mainland Fuzzpalm, Obsidibend, Carnosprawl) Respiration: Active (Lungs) Thermoregulation: Endotherm (Fur) Reproduction: Sexual (Male and Female, Placental, Milk) The tambuck split from its ancestor, the tamjack, when some floating nests drifted further east into the waters surrounding the supercontinent. Unlike the tamjack, the tambuck does not drift far out to sea, instead living among tlukvaequabora mangrove-reefs which encircle Dixon. It is a somewhat better swimmer than its ancestor; its spikes are now mobile and can be pulled flat against its body as to not interfere with swimming. It is also a decent climber, with each of its three-toed feet bearing a semi-retractable, semi-opposable thumb, which allows it to wander among tlukvaequabora roots and logs that rise above the water's surface. As a tamjack, the tambuck is somewhat intelligent and has advanced instinctive nest-building capabilities. The tambuck is named for its enlarged incisors, which it uses to bite through flora. They do not grow continuously, unlike a rodent's teeth, so their large size ensures that they last at least as long as the tambuck's natural lifespan. It primarily feeds on aquatic flora, but it may venture onto the beach to consume flora found there as well. Tambucks without nests will also travel to beaches in search of good wood for nest construction. Tambucks are naturally monogamous and generally live as small family groups consisting of a mated pair with young, though they are not territorial and will interact amicably with neighboring families. Though the tambuck still constructs radial basket-like boat-nests, these are mostly immobile and set among the mangroves where they will not drift away. Instead of dispersal, the floating nest now serves a new purpose--protection of its young. The pouch was a vestige of their ancestry because tambucks are placental and their young outgrow it quickly, and it created an unnecessary limitation on their ability to feed and doomed a mother to either starvation or drowning her babies if her mate were to die. So, the tambuck completely forgoes the pouch and can leave its offspring behind in the nest while foraging for food. As the nest is floating, it isn't in constant contact with any surface from which parasites or small predators might crawl on board. The sun beating down onto the nest keeps it warm enough that the young babies won't be chilled to death before their mother returns and they can nurse. The pouch is not completely lost, but now serves to streamline a mother tambuck's underbelly by containing her teats, somewhat like a built-in bra. The pouch and enlarged mammary glands are only present during late pregnancy and while nursing, as is the case in many Terran mammals. The tambuck reproduces more often than its ancestor, giving birth to 2-4 babies at a time every 1-2 years. Tambucks gestate for 6 months, take 3 years to reach full size, and, barring early death by disease or predation, they can live for up to 30 years.

Approved.

Did the 2-species Radiodurans lineage ever influence anything?

Edit: Nevermind, it does seem to have a few predators, mostly infectoids.

This post has been edited by Cube67: Aug 23 2022, 01:25 PM

Only the creator of a species can decanonize it.

Wasn't aware, but probably a good rule to have in some cases.

I have a proposed decanon, the Dirsidplaque. It might be my worst attempt at a species, simply for how implausible it is

QUOTE

The dirsidplaque arose when a dirtsident spore was absorbed by a guttoplaque. The dirsenplaque replaced it's ancestor guttoplaque in the Blood Lava Tube Caves, but not dirtsident. The nucleus of the 2 creatures has fused together. They use the translucent tentacles to grab food particles and drag them towards the microvilli on their cell membranes. They are found only in the digestive systems of Ukfauna living in the Blood Lava Tube Caves.